Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
- Original Message From: Mariusz Kruk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: ReiseFS vs XFS Date: 27/09/05 23:55 > Not necesarily. > leafnode - yes. one file per message (or even worse than that). > inn - can be IIRC configured to work this way but can also work with big > cycbuf files. Hmm, I was never able to get inn to work. However, upon installation of leafnode I found that newsgroups started working very nicely pulling and posting from and to my ISP's news server :) __ Message sent using UebiMiau v 2.7.8 [Debian GNU/Linux for Sparc64 'Etch'] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 11:48 -0400, Bradley Alexander wrote: > You mentioned a "home" computer. I have more than one system in my home that > are multiuser, which kicks in security rules. Personally, I have four rules > for partitioning securely. Rules 1 and 2 grew out of the days when filling / > would kill the machine. Rule 3 came from my use of RdHat :). I create a > separate partition for: > > * any filesystem a user can write to directly (e.g. /home, /tmp) > * any filesystem a user can write to indirectly (e.g. /var) > * any filesystem you want to save the information on (e.g. /usr/local, /opt) > > I am an LVM fan too. Its too easy that any box I build (including laptops) > uses LVM. Mr. Alexander, you have nailed the definition for me. I have been doing that for many a year. Except /usr/local and /opt grew from what used to be /usr for me. Too many problems were accredited to the fact that users had the homedirs in /usr. My first nice HP9000 (a very early 817) had all the users locate in /usr/users/. That is the way it came from HP! I was never able to get things right until I re-installed the whole she-bang from my bootable DDS tape. I gave the Mapics install /opt/mapics/ and the netscape webserver /usr/local/netscape/ and the users /u/ and also allowed me to get /tmp off the root filesystem. As I had a few times where Mapics would fill up the /tmp space (and the rootfs). But I thank you for your input! -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, Better, Faster: Linux Use Debian GNU/Linux, its a bazaar thing. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
John Hasler napisał(a): [NNTP servers work with ] gazillions of small files. Mariusz Kruk writes: leafnode - yes. and cnews. inn - can be IIRC configured to work this way but can also work with big cycbuf files. Thus making the contents of the spool inaccessible to anything but inn. Yep. But that was not the question. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
I wrote: > [NNTP servers work with ] gazillions of small files. Mariusz Kruk writes: > leafnode - yes. and cnews. > inn - can be IIRC configured to work this way but can also work with big > cycbuf files. Thus making the contents of the spool inaccessible to anything but inn. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Monday 26 September 2005 11:59 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > Who said you shouldn't? I think you are not understanding > > "That's JUST you", to my not-native-english-speaker skills is a sarcastic > way to say "nobody else but you". So, I replied with a reason why many > administrators would care about the state of /, even if /home is gone, and > why they would have them separate to improve the chances of / surviving. A, yeah, no. It means "That's just the way YOU do it...", emphasis is a bit diff. Your non-native english is better than my non-native *insert Latin-based Euro-language here* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
John Hasler napisał(a): I meant, "do nntd daemons work with A Few Big Files, or One File Per Message? Gazillions of small files. Not necesarily. leafnode - yes. one file per message (or even worse than that). inn - can be IIRC configured to work this way but can also work with big cycbuf files. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:35:58 -0500 John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ron Johnson writes: > > I meant, "do nntd daemons work with A Few Big Files, or > > One File Per Message? > > Gazillions of small files. Sounds like that's right up ReiserFS's alley. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
Ron Johnson writes: > I meant, "do nntd daemons work with A Few Big Files, or One File Per > Message? Gazillions of small files. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On 27/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Dick, > > > > I'm actually starting to think about giving each user their own > > partition, since it's so little hassle. > > > Would that be feasable in an enviroment with 40.000 mail users ? ;-) I don't run an environment with 4 users Anyway, do you really want each mail user to have their own home directory?. > I understood that basically Scsi HDD can have 15 partitions max and > IDE/SATA f.e. 64 partitions max. > > Am I mistaken, or do you know more than me ? If you like :) I'm talking about LVM. 64 ide partitions == 64 LVM physical volumes. You build one dirty great volume group out of that, and then create as many logical volumes as you want. A volume group can be made out of physical volumes on multiple disks, so there's no limit to the size of a volume group. (There's probably some internal kernel data structure that is finite, I haven't looked at the code). -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:02:14 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:50:53 -0300 > > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > > I'm actually starting to think about giving each > > > > > user their own partition, since it's so little > > > > > hassle. > > > > > > > > > Would that be feasable in an enviroment with 40.000 > > > > mail users ? ;-) > > > > > > Nah. But if you have 4 mail users, and that > > > translates to 4 Unix users in that box, well, you > > > could be doing much better :) There are many MTA+MDA > > > +POP/IMAP that do not require such nonsense :P > > > > Whay about nntp? > > What about NNTP? AFAIK it requires exactly one user on the > NNTP server... Although I have never had to deal directly > with setting INN. > > That said, if you meant NNTP access to mail, well, I know > Cyrus IMAPd v2.2 has it (its spool accepts incoming data > over LMTP, IMAP and NNTP, and outgoing over POP3, IMAP and > NNTP). I meant, "do nntd daemons work with A Few Big Files, or One File Per Message? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
I must get some sleep. Here's a proofread version of my reply :) On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:50:53 -0300 > > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > > I'm actually starting to think about giving each user > > > > > their own partition, since it's so little hassle. > > > > > > > > > Would that be feasable in an enviroment with 40.000 mail > > > > users ? ;-) > > > > > > Nah. But if you have 4 mail users, and that translates > > > to 4 Unix users in that box, well, you could be doing > > > much better :) There are many MTA+MDA+POP/IMAP that do not > > > require such nonsense :P > > > > Whay about nntp? > > What about NNTP? AFAIK it requires exactly one user on the NNTP server... > Although I have never had to deal directly with setting INN. setting INN up, I mean. > That said, if you meant NNTP access to mail, well, I know Cyrus IMAPd v2.2 > has it (its spool accepts incoming data over LMTP, IMAP and NNTP, and > outgoing over POP3, IMAP and NNTP). And Cyrus needs only one user, for a virtually unlimited number of user accounts. Maybe it will choke if you give it more than 2^31 users, I am not in a state where I can dive into the Cyrus C code to root that out. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:50:53 -0300 > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > I'm actually starting to think about giving each user > > > > their own partition, since it's so little hassle. > > > > > > > Would that be feasable in an enviroment with 40.000 mail > > > users ? ;-) > > > > Nah. But if you have 4 mail users, and that translates > > to 4 Unix users in that box, well, you could be doing > > much better :) There are many MTA+MDA+POP/IMAP that do not > > require such nonsense :P > > Whay about nntp? What about NNTP? AFAIK it requires exactly one user on the NNTP server... Although I have never had to deal directly with setting INN. That said, if you meant NNTP access to mail, well, I know Cyrus IMAPd v2.2 has it (its spool accepts incoming data over LMTP, IMAP and NNTP, and outgoing over POP3, IMAP and NNTP). -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote: > On Monday 26 September 2005 07:20 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > That's JUST you. I backup / as well, so... > > > > Please explain to me why should I NOT care that I can still remote connect > > through the serial console to a system where /home, /usr and /var is hosed, > > but / is still OK so it is trivial to rebuild from backup? > > Who said you shouldn't? I think you are not understanding "That's JUST you", to my not-native-english-speaker skills is a sarcastic way to say "nobody else but you". So, I replied with a reason why many administrators would care about the state of /, even if /home is gone, and why they would have them separate to improve the chances of / surviving. > > Not to mention it is easier to install anoter system over, etc. > > > > "anecdotes" (sic). Hah. > ? > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anecdotes The "hah" was me getting annoyed. The (sic) was a mistake caused by my annoyance. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:50:53 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > I'm actually starting to think about giving each user > > > their own partition, since it's so little hassle. > > > > > Would that be feasable in an enviroment with 40.000 mail > > users ? ;-) > > Nah. But if you have 4 mail users, and that translates > to 4 Unix users in that box, well, you could be doing > much better :) There are many MTA+MDA+POP/IMAP that do not > require such nonsense :P Whay about nntp? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm actually starting to think about giving each user their own > > partition, since it's so little hassle. > > > Would that be feasable in an enviroment with 40.000 mail users ? ;-) Nah. But if you have 4 mail users, and that translates to 4 Unix users in that box, well, you could be doing much better :) There are many MTA+MDA+POP/IMAP that do not require such nonsense :P > I understood that basically Scsi HDD can have 15 partitions max and > IDE/SATA f.e. 64 partitions max. LVM _may_ change that picture, as it has nothing to do with partitions. But it probably has a limit somewhere, and it probably is not too high :-) -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
I have posted a URL for a wikipedia link on the same email that you quoted me from. That's where I got the information. On 9/26/05, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Malcolm Lalkaka wrote: > > ReiserFS is faster than ext3 ONLY for files under 4kB. In such a case, > > you can expect to experience faster speeds than ext3 by a factor of 10 > > Come to think of it, where did you get these numbers from? > > -- > "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring > them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond > where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot > Henrique Holschuh > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Malcolm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Monday 26 September 2005 07:20 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > That's JUST you. I backup / as well, so... > > Please explain to me why should I NOT care that I can still remote connect > through the serial console to a system where /home, /usr and /var is hosed, > but / is still OK so it is trivial to rebuild from backup? Who said you shouldn't? I think you are not understanding > Not to mention it is easier to install anoter system over, etc. > > "anecdotes" (sic). Hah. ? http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anecdotes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
Hello Dick, > I'm actually starting to think about giving each user their own > partition, since it's so little hassle. > Would that be feasable in an enviroment with 40.000 mail users ? ;-) I understood that basically Scsi HDD can have 15 partitions max and IDE/SATA f.e. 64 partitions max. Am I mistaken, or do you know more than me ? Best regards Nils Valentin Tokyo / Japan http://www.be-known-online.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:51:09 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > > I don't have a link, but I do know that Reiser can pack > > multiple small files into 1 block (tail packing). Thus, > > if > > I have been told that reiser3 tailpacking is extremely > hideous for performance. That must be kept in mind as well. It probably depends on the average size of the file in the partition. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote: > On Monday 26 September 2005 05:44 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote: > > > On Monday 26 September 2005 11:27 am, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Daniel Garcia wrote: > > > > > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > > > > > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a > > > > > > > > So that your / is as static as possible. And decoupled from about as > > > > much as possible. The first time you have problems with memory or > > > > disks, you will understand. > > > > > > Who cares about / if your personal data is trashed in /home? > > > > I, for one. /home is on backup. So is /, but it gets far easier to > > restore if / is still good. > > That's JUST you. I backup / as well, so... Please explain to me why should I NOT care that I can still remote connect through the serial console to a system where /home, /usr and /var is hosed, but / is still OK so it is trivial to rebuild from backup? Not to mention it is easier to install anoter system over, etc. "anecdotes" (sic). Hah. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote: > On Monday 26 September 2005 05:42 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote: > > > > /lib, /sbin, /bin, /boot and a few other oddities (certianly not /home, > > > > /srv, /usr, /var or /tmp), then you really are better off using ext3 > > > > there for safety. > > > > > > I disagree. Could you tell me why you present this as fact? > > > > Because it has made my life MUCH easier over the five or so big disk > > crashes on small servers without RAID I have been through. Because it made > > my life much easier while trying to switch filesystems, or moving systems > > to RAID1 on-line with minimum downtime. Because of quotas. Because system > > performance seems to be better with some filesystems if I segregate the big > > stuff (/home and others) from the small stuff (/usr, /...). Because I can > > use different filesystems and filesystem mount options according to what is > > in each partition (and I do just that)... and the list goes on. > > I was talking about how you present ext3 as the best option, as opposed to > reiserfs. Ah, ok. I mixed two opinions into one. I'd use ext3 for / because its repair tools have one of the best track record I know of, and it is sane and safe on almost all kernels in production. I might be persuaded to try reiser3 for /, but it would matter little for performance of the box as a whole, and it is very, very unlikely that reiser3 would be safer than ext3 (it might be as safe as, though). -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:27:08 -0400 Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 25 September 2005 03:35 pm, Henrique de Moraes > Holschuh wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > For / , why not use ext3? > > > > Agreed. ext3 is stable, quite fast enough (IF you're > > using kernel 2.6 and enable all optionals) and it is > > extremely *safe*. AND it has the best set of recovery > > tools I know of, should you actually need them. > > > > If you are doing a proper install where / contains not > > much more than /etc, /lib, /sbin, /bin, /boot and a few > > other oddities (certianly not /home, /srv, /usr, /var > > or /tmp), then you really are better off using ext3 there > > for safety. > > I disagree. Could you tell me why you present this as fact? ext3 is a solid, very low-bug system. The on-disk structure is the same as that of ext2. Thus, all ext2 utilities work on it. *Every* rescue disk has ext2 support. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Monday 26 September 2005 05:44 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote: > > On Monday 26 September 2005 11:27 am, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Daniel Garcia wrote: > > > > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > > > > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a > > > > > > So that your / is as static as possible. And decoupled from about as > > > much as possible. The first time you have problems with memory or > > > disks, you will understand. > > > > Who cares about / if your personal data is trashed in /home? > > I, for one. /home is on backup. So is /, but it gets far easier to > restore if / is still good. That's JUST you. I backup / as well, so... I guess what I want you to notice is that your statements of fact are very subjective and have not much to do with giving sound advice...just anecdotes... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Monday 26 September 2005 05:42 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote: > > > /lib, /sbin, /bin, /boot and a few other oddities (certianly not /home, > > > /srv, /usr, /var or /tmp), then you really are better off using ext3 > > > there for safety. > > > > I disagree. Could you tell me why you present this as fact? > > Because it has made my life MUCH easier over the five or so big disk > crashes on small servers without RAID I have been through. Because it made > my life much easier while trying to switch filesystems, or moving systems > to RAID1 on-line with minimum downtime. Because of quotas. Because system > performance seems to be better with some filesystems if I segregate the big > stuff (/home and others) from the small stuff (/usr, /...). Because I can > use different filesystems and filesystem mount options according to what is > in each partition (and I do just that)... and the list goes on. I was talking about how you present ext3 as the best option, as opposed to reiserfs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > I don't have a link, but I do know that Reiser can pack > multiple small files into 1 block (tail packing). Thus, if I have been told that reiser3 tailpacking is extremely hideous for performance. That must be kept in mind as well. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote: > On Monday 26 September 2005 11:27 am, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Daniel Garcia wrote: > > > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > > > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a > > > > So that your / is as static as possible. And decoupled from about as much > > as possible. The first time you have problems with memory or disks, you > > will understand. > > Who cares about / if your personal data is trashed in /home? I, for one. /home is on backup. So is /, but it gets far easier to restore if / is still good. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote: > > /lib, /sbin, /bin, /boot and a few other oddities (certianly not /home, > > /srv, /usr, /var or /tmp), then you really are better off using ext3 there > > for safety. > > I disagree. Could you tell me why you present this as fact? Because it has made my life MUCH easier over the five or so big disk crashes on small servers without RAID I have been through. Because it made my life much easier while trying to switch filesystems, or moving systems to RAID1 on-line with minimum downtime. Because of quotas. Because system performance seems to be better with some filesystems if I segregate the big stuff (/home and others) from the small stuff (/usr, /...). Because I can use different filesystems and filesystem mount options according to what is in each partition (and I do just that)... and the list goes on. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Monday 26 September 2005 11:27 am, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Daniel Garcia wrote: > > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a > > So that your / is as static as possible. And decoupled from about as much > as possible. The first time you have problems with memory or disks, you > will understand. Who cares about / if your personal data is trashed in /home? You can reinstall the system in an hour...separating /home is more about keeping your data when you upgrade, switch disks, etc... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sunday 25 September 2005 03:35 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > > For / , why not use ext3? > > Agreed. ext3 is stable, quite fast enough (IF you're using kernel 2.6 and > enable all optionals) and it is extremely *safe*. AND it has the best set > of recovery tools I know of, should you actually need them. > > If you are doing a proper install where / contains not much more than /etc, > /lib, /sbin, /bin, /boot and a few other oddities (certianly not /home, > /srv, /usr, /var or /tmp), then you really are better off using ext3 there > for safety. I disagree. Could you tell me why you present this as fact? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:55:49 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Malcolm Lalkaka wrote: > > ReiserFS is faster than ext3 ONLY for files under 4kB. In > > such a case, you can expect to experience faster speeds > > than ext3 by a factor of 10 > > Come to think of it, where did you get these numbers from? I don't have a link, but I do know that Reiser can pack multiple small files into 1 block (tail packing). Thus, if you have a directory with 10,000 *small* files, they may only take 500 or 1,000 blocks, instead of 10,000 blocks. Thus, minimized disk reads, and faster processing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Daniel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a > home > computer. Isnt it more painful to have to calculate > the size for each partition Why should it be? Give an adequate amount of space for / (6GB is more than enough), a little bit for /boot, and the rest to /home. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:11:24AM -0700, Daniel Garcia wrote: > > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a > home > computer. Isnt it more painful to have to calculate > the size for each partition > > Thanks > Daniel Whe I upgraded one of my boxes from woody to sarge, I was happy I had a separate /home. What I did was make a copy of / (without /home) on another partition, making sure both were bootable, and then upgraded the copy. The upgrade failed for reasons not really relevant here, and I was still able to boo the original woody system. Once I successfully upgraded (at least to the point where sarge would run) I then had a period of parallel operation. If something I relied on didn't work in sarge, I could reboot to woody to get things working while I meditated on a fix. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Alvin Oga wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Rob Benton wrote: I've lost data and a whole partition using xfs. I wouldn't call it stable. I use reiser now. XFS *is* stable now, as long as you don't do a "don't do that" thing like two MDs on top of each other (to get RAID0+1) and then apply LVM on top of it :-) But for XFS it still remains the truth that you better be keeping up with the stable kernels (2.6.13.2 right now), buglets are still being found here and there, while ext3 is even more stable (but buglets still show up every few releases). Also, XFS guarantees data (as oposed to *meta*data, which is the filesystem structures) *only* after a fsync or sync returns. Ext3 guarantees it always (and thus, cannot help but be slower than XFS for non sync operations). I have no idea about raiser3. If I remember right I was using sarge with kernel 2.6.11 and X locked up on me. I can't remember if I killed it from a virtual terminal and then rebooted or if I had to hard reboot. But I wasn't able to recover from that. It was my desktop machine and just using a plain old HD (no RAID or LVM). What really turned me off from XFS though, was that I got no response on the mailing list even though it seemed pretty active. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
partitions Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Daniel Garcia wrote: > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a > home > computer. Isnt it more painful to have to calculate > the size for each partition rasputnik> * If /home gets hosed, you can still get in single-user to fix/restore it. rasputnik> * same for backups rasputnik> * you can set quotas on a per-partition basis. rasputnik> * one dumb user (possibly you) is not going to be able to fill / rasputnik> * you can reuse /home between different Linuxes rasputnik> * when you reinstall, skip formatting /home and you don't lose your data and when you rebuild or restore ... you only need to rebuild the system directories and /home will always have your own user data hmh> So that your / is as static as possible. And decoupled from about as hmh> much as possible. brad> * any filesystem a user can write to directly (e.g. /home, /tmp) brad> * any filesystem a user can write to indirectly (e.g. /var) but, users should not have any user-defined stuff in /var brad> * any filesystem you want to save the information on (e.g. brad> /usr/local, /opt) add to the list anybody ( you ) can read/write your home data from any other pc if /home is separate, and you cannot screw up the machine hosting /home if its a separate partition RemoveMachine# mount home:/home/daniel /home RemoteMachine# rm -rf /home/daniel - you can do your work from any pc you want maximum disk space for users .. and minimum space for the static system "system files" is backed up on the internet ... millions of places /home/daniel is not backed up anywhere in the world and there's hundreds of ways to recover/recreate a working server you want / to be 32MB or 64MB ( small as possible == smaller is better ) so that you can restore or fix a crashed system in "single user mode" or recreate a brand new system in a few minutes minimum / is typically /dev /etc /bin /sbin and nothing else is needed to boot including /boot is NOT needed you do NOT want to be waiting ( hours/days ) for ext3 or reiserfs checking its entire 100GB or 1TB of disks instead of just checking 64MB system to get into single user to fix the problem if "/" is fs clean, you can be 100% sure you can keep working you want /tmp /var/tmp /usr/tmp to be non-exploitable with 1777 as it's permissions - if those 3 partitions is in the same partition as /, your whole system dies when "tmp" is exploited probably lots more reasons why partitions is required vs the headaches (for newbies) of why it is needed and than there's the lazyman and yet sometimes okay school of thought of just one partition for them, but that doesn't mean others should follow them vs following the crazies with 7 or more partitions - you can decide which way is better for you after you had problems with one approach or the other and why that problem occured in the first place - partitions being 100% is NOT an acceptable excuse but is a sign of inadequate planning or your outgrew your system and time to get a bigger disk cya alvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Alvin Oga wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Rob Benton wrote: > > I've lost data and a whole partition using xfs. I wouldn't call it > > stable. I use reiser now. XFS *is* stable now, as long as you don't do a "don't do that" thing like two MDs on top of each other (to get RAID0+1) and then apply LVM on top of it :-) But for XFS it still remains the truth that you better be keeping up with the stable kernels (2.6.13.2 right now), buglets are still being found here and there, while ext3 is even more stable (but buglets still show up every few releases). Also, XFS guarantees data (as oposed to *meta*data, which is the filesystem structures) *only* after a fsync or sync returns. Ext3 guarantees it always (and thus, cannot help but be slower than XFS for non sync operations). I have no idea about raiser3. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Malcolm Lalkaka wrote: > ReiserFS is faster than ext3 ONLY for files under 4kB. In such a case, > you can expect to experience faster speeds than ext3 by a factor of 10 Come to think of it, where did you get these numbers from? -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Monday 26 September 2005 11:25 am, Dick Davies wrote: > On 26/09/05, Daniel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a > > home computer. You mentioned a "home" computer. I have more than one system in my home that are multiuser, which kicks in security rules. Personally, I have four rules for partitioning securely. Rules 1 and 2 grew out of the days when filling / would kill the machine. Rule 3 came from my use of RdHat :). I create a separate partition for: * any filesystem a user can write to directly (e.g. /home, /tmp) * any filesystem a user can write to indirectly (e.g. /var) * any filesystem you want to save the information on (e.g. /usr/local, /opt) > > Isnt it more painful to have to calculate > > the size for each partition > Besides, with LVM (yes, I am an LVM cheerleader) you don't have to know > the size in advance - > give it a gb and you can always grow it afterwards. > I'm actually starting to think about giving each user their own > partition, since it's so little hassle. I am an LVM fan too. Its too easy that any box I build (including laptops) uses LVM. > -- > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns -- --Brad Bradley M. Alexander | IA Analyst, SysAdmin, Security Engineer| storm [at] tux.org Debian/GNU Linux Developer | storm [at] debian.org Key fingerprints: DSA 0x54434E65: 37F6 BCA6 621D 920C E02E E3C8 73B2 C019 5443 4E65 RSA 0xC3BCBA91: 3F 0E 26 C1 90 14 AD 0A C8 9C F0 93 75 A0 01 34 Ask people why they have deer heads on their walls and they tell you it's because they're such beautiful animals. I think my wife is beautiful, but I only have photographs of her on the wall. --George Carlin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Daniel Garcia wrote: > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a So that your / is as static as possible. And decoupled from about as much as possible. The first time you have problems with memory or disks, you will understand. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On 26/09/05, Daniel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why is it interesting to have a different partition > for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a > home > computer. Isnt it more painful to have to calculate > the size for each partition > > Thanks > Daniel off the top of my head: * If /home gets hosed, you can still get in single-user to fix/restore it. * same for backups * you can set quotas on a per-partition basis. * one dumb user (possibly you) is not going to be able to fill / * you can reuse /home between different Linuxes * when you reinstall, skip formatting /home and you don't lose your data Besides, with LVM (yes, I am an LVM cheerleader) you don't have to know the size in advance - give it a gb and you can always grow it afterwards. I'm actually starting to think about giving each user their own partition, since it's so little hassle. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
Why is it interesting to have a different partition for / and for /home? I have never seen the point in a home computer. Isnt it more painful to have to calculate the size for each partition Thanks Daniel --- Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > > For / , why not use ext3? > > Agreed. ext3 is stable, quite fast enough (IF you're > using kernel 2.6 and > enable all optionals) and it is extremely *safe*. > AND it has the best set > of recovery tools I know of, should you actually > need them. > > If you are doing a proper install where / contains > not much more than /etc, > /lib, /sbin, /bin, /boot and a few other oddities > (certianly not /home, > /srv, /usr, /var or /tmp), then you really are > better off using ext3 there > for safety. > > -- > "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. > One disk to bring > them all and in the darkness grind them. In the > Land of Redmond > where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley > Tarot > Henrique Holschuh > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Rob Benton wrote: > I've lost data and a whole partition using xfs. I wouldn't call it > stable. I use reiser now. that'd depend on: - which glibc, which kernel, which version of xfs vs reiserfs i've lost partitions and/or files with all of the fs including ext3 - latest gottcha is when you start to use loopfiles inside jfs vs xfs and ext3 is too big ( inodes ) and too slow lesson: don't play around with old version and at least its on my experimental boxes so it wasn't critical if you're going to use newer version, backup first ... including the old version of the working fs binaries and libs c ya alvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On 9/25/05, Daniel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know wich is the best filesystem to > use: the ReiseFS or XFS. Is it possible to do a whole > installation of the Debian system (testing) with XFS. > I will use the netinst ISO. > http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html -- Jiann-Ming Su "I have to decide between two equally frightening options. If I wanted to do that, I'd vote." --Duckman
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
Daniel Garcia wrote: Hello, I would like to know wich is the best filesystem to use: the ReiseFS or XFS. Is it possible to do a whole installation of the Debian system (testing) with XFS. If you only deal with small file sizes, Reiserfs/Reiser4fs is the best option. If you go for a lot of larger graphics/media files, XFS is the way to go. If you intend a mixture of both, the default Ext3 is best. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 16:30 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, David Clymer wrote: > > If you are planning on doing LVM, use XFS. XFS will allow you to resize > > a filesytem on the fly - no need to umount, resize, remount, etc. I've > > No. It will alow you to *grow* the filesystem. It doesn't allow reducing, > AFAIK. You're right. Wrong choice of words on my part. -davidc -- gpg-key: http://www.zettazebra.com/files/key.gpg signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 20:57 +0100, Dick Davies wrote: > On 25/09/05, David Clymer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If you are planning on doing LVM, use XFS. XFS will allow you to resize > > a filesytem on the fly - no need to umount, resize, remount, etc. I've > > found this to be a very handy feature: > > > > $ lvresize --size +1G /dev/vg0/foo > > $ xfs_growfs /foo > > > > done. sweet, no? > > Yeah. Try shrinking it :) heh. > > reiserfs lets you do online growing, and you can shrink it if you > don't mind unmounting it first. Nice. I didnt know that. -davidc -- gpg-key: http://www.zettazebra.com/files/key.gpg signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On 9/25/05, Daniel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know wich is the best filesystem to > use: the ReiseFS or XFS. Is it possible to do a whole > installation of the Debian system (testing) with XFS. > I will use the netinst ISO. > > Thank you > Daniel It really depends on what you want to do: ReiserFS is faster than ext3 ONLY for files under 4kB. In such a case, you can expect to experience faster speeds than ext3 by a factor of 10 to 15. "This is of great benefit in Usenet news spools, HTTP caches, mail delivery systems and other applications where small file performance is critical." If you use ReiserFS, use a kernel that is newer than 2.6.2, since the ReiserFS on older kernels had problems. ReiserFS, also known as Reiser3, is no longer in development, other than security updates and critical bug fixes. This is because ReiserFS will be superseded by Reiser4. Currently Reiser4 has not been merged into the mainstream Linux kernel, although this is the developer's (Namesys) first priority. XFS (developed by SGI) is also good, since it allows you to do online-resizing; but ReiserFS allows you to do this as well, and so does ext3 (all three only allow you to grow your partitions, not shrink them). Also XFS allows you to do online-defragmentation. However, XFS is known to suffer from "out-of-order write hazards". If you're going to use ext2, you may as well use ext3 (developed by Stephen Tweedie), which is essentially ext2 with a journal. This makes it more reliable than ext2, but at a slight cost of speed. This small cost in speed is worth it, in my opinion. It is very hard to recover deleted files on ext3; but this can be a good thing or bad thing, depending on its purpose. Unlike XFS, fragmentation isn't considered an issue on ext3, so you won't need to defragment ext3. To summarize, if you are going to run a system that will deal with small files, less than 4kB in size, then use ReiserFS. Otherwise, I would use the ext3 filesystem. XFS is good, but I'm not sure what it offers that ReiserFS or ext3 doesn't offer. I personally use ext3, and the performance and reliability is great. I use ext3 because many files of mine are larger than 4kB, in which case ReiserFS would not be the better choice. Furthermore, the convenience of not requiring defragmentation is a major advantage of ext3. I hope this helps. All the information in this email was acquired from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_filesystems and the associated links. The quoted material is also from this webpage or from pages linked to it. Please refer to the page if in need of more informative material. Malcolm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On 25/09/05, David Clymer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you are planning on doing LVM, use XFS. XFS will allow you to resize > a filesytem on the fly - no need to umount, resize, remount, etc. I've > found this to be a very handy feature: > > $ lvresize --size +1G /dev/vg0/foo > $ xfs_growfs /foo > > done. sweet, no? Yeah. Try shrinking it :) reiserfs lets you do online growing, and you can shrink it if you don't mind unmounting it first. > gpg-key: http://www.zettazebra.com/files/key.gpg > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQBDNvbS2XpGgG+SNaERAmfwAKDYGJp6MkTcRoA+CdN61q96HriOsgCg2vlf > QidZDndtc6GU6K25vqtVhUE= > =1Ovq > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
Daniel Garcia wrote: Hello, I would like to know wich is the best filesystem to use: the ReiseFS or XFS. Is it possible to do a whole installation of the Debian system (testing) with XFS. I will use the netinst ISO. Thank you Daniel __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com I've lost data and a whole partition using xfs. I wouldn't call it stable. I use reiser now. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > For / , why not use ext3? Agreed. ext3 is stable, quite fast enough (IF you're using kernel 2.6 and enable all optionals) and it is extremely *safe*. AND it has the best set of recovery tools I know of, should you actually need them. If you are doing a proper install where / contains not much more than /etc, /lib, /sbin, /bin, /boot and a few other oddities (certianly not /home, /srv, /usr, /var or /tmp), then you really are better off using ext3 there for safety. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, David Clymer wrote: > If you are planning on doing LVM, use XFS. XFS will allow you to resize > a filesytem on the fly - no need to umount, resize, remount, etc. I've No. It will alow you to *grow* the filesystem. It doesn't allow reducing, AFAIK. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 09:45 -0700, Daniel Garcia wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know wich is the best filesystem to > use: the ReiseFS or XFS. Is it possible to do a whole > installation of the Debian system (testing) with XFS. > I will use the netinst ISO. If you are planning on doing LVM, use XFS. XFS will allow you to resize a filesytem on the fly - no need to umount, resize, remount, etc. I've found this to be a very handy feature: $ lvresize --size +1G /dev/vg0/foo $ xfs_growfs /foo done. sweet, no? -davidc -- gpg-key: http://www.zettazebra.com/files/key.gpg signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On 25/09/05, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For / , why not use ext3? Reiser is faster, isn't it? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Daniel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know wich is the best filesystem to > use: the ReiseFS or XFS. Is it possible to do a whole > installation of the Debian system (testing) with XFS. > I will use the netinst ISO. For / , why not use ext3? A huge partition that you plan on using for for video and large audio files, though, is what xfs was really designed for. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReiseFS vs XFS
Hello, I would like to know wich is the best filesystem to use: the ReiseFS or XFS. Is it possible to do a whole installation of the Debian system (testing) with XFS. I will use the netinst ISO. Thank you Daniel __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS - test
hi ya > > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Daniel Garcia wrote: > > I would like to know wich is the best filesystem to > > use: the ReiseFS or XFS. and you will be tested on the differences between each FS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems c ya alvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Daniel Garcia wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know wich is the best filesystem to > use: the ReiseFS or XFS. what do you need it to do ?? ( it does make some difference ) - given reierfs or xfs ... i'd use the lastest xfs-2.6.36 - always use the lastest fs .. not older ones ( mkfs.foo -V ) reiserfs-3.6.19 xfs-2.6.36 jfs-1.1.8 - for speed ... ext2 will win most all speed tests - for formatting tests ... ext2 will lose by several orders of magnitude ( say 24hrs to format 3TB, while it takes 5min for xfs or reiserfs or jfs ) - for number of inodes for it's super blocks, it matters when every byte counts, in which case vfat or msdos will win .. take the same 40GB partition and format it and see the major differences - for allowing you to pull the power at anytime, and not lose any data ... i'd use msdos .. not vfat - for compactflash or usb-stick ... - it's a gamble of how many times you can read/write it before it decides to go on a permanent vacation - for loop devices inside of a fs... i'd avoid old jfs .. as i have seen it repeatedly corrupt the looopfiles - for max file size and max partition sizes ... that'd be loads of fun to compare - more xfs vs riserfs vs jfs vs ext3 vs ext2 vs blah http://www.Linux-Sec.net/FS/ c ya alvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
